THE COUNTY COUNSEL

COUNTY OF ORANGE333 W. SANTA ANA BLVD., SUITE 407

SANTA ANA, CA 92701

MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1379

SANTA ANA, CA 92702-1379(714)834-3300

FAX: (714) 834-2359

October 21, 2016

Julia Woo

Deputy(714)834-6046

LEON i. PAGE

COUNIT COUNSEL

ANNE. FLETCHER

JACK W. GOLDEN

MARIANNE VAN RIPER

SENIOR ASSISTANTS

JAMES C. BARMAN

ASSISTANT

KAREN L. CHRISTENSEN

JAMES C. HARVEY

ADRIENNESAUROHECKMAN

MARK R. HOWE

LAURA D. KNAPP

THOMAS A. -MAT' MILLER

NICOLE A. SIMS

DANAJ. STITS

SUPERVISING DEPUTIES

JASON C. BROWN

DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION

JANELLEB PRICE

LAURIEA SHADE

DANIEL K SKEPHARD

JOYCE RILEY

STEVEN C MILLER

CAROLYN S FROST

ROBERT N ERVAIS

NIKHILG DAFTARV

JEANHIESU

WENDY J PHILLIPS

TERl L MAKSOUDIAN

ANGELICA CASTILLO DAFTARY

MICHAEL A HAUBiRT

BRADR POSIN

SAUL REYES

AURELIO TORRE

MARK D SERVmO

DEBBIETORREZ

JACQUELINEGUZHANANDREA COLLER

PAULM ALBARIAN

D.KEVIN DUNN

LORI A TORRISI

MASSOUDSHAMEl

SHARON ViaORIADURBIN

REBECCAS LEEDS

NICOLE M WALSH

ELIZABETH A PEJEAU

UURENC KRAMER

GABRIEL! BOWNE

JULIAC WOO

LAUREL M TIPPETT

MARK A BATARSE

ADAMC CLANTON

KRISTEN K LECONC

ERICA DIVINE

JAMES D P STEINMANN

VANESSA D ATKINS

SUZANNE E SHOAI

DEBORAH B MORSE

MATTHEWS SPRISSLER

KAYLAN WATSON

CAROLYN M KHOJZAM

ANNIE J LOO

RONALDT MAGSAYSAY

JOHN P CLEVELAND

SAM.AR.AaELCARDE

CHRISTOPHERS ANDERSON

JUSTIN A GRAHAM

flRITTANY MtLEAN

JEFFREY A STOCK

MARKN SANCHEZ

GOLNAZZANDIEH

CYNTHIA G INDA

STEPHANIE L WATSON

DEPUTIES

VIA DROP BOX

Ms. Heather HalseyExecutive Director

Commission on State Mandates

980 Ninth Street, Suite 300

Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Supplemental Brief Filed on Behalf of Joint Test Claimants RegardingDepartment of Finance, et al v. Commission on State Mandates, (2016) I Cal. 5th 749,and Test Claim 09-TC-03 Santa Ana Regional Water Permit - Orange County

Dear Ms. Halsey;

Attached please find a Supplemental Brief discussing the opinion of the CaliforniaSupreme Court in Department ofFinance, et al v. Commission on State Mandates, (2016) 1 Cal.5th 749. This brief is submitted in response to your letter dated September 21, 2016, requestingsupplemental briefing concerning how this case applies to Test Claim 09-TC-03 Santa AnaRegional Water Permit - Orange County.

This Supplemental Brief is being submitted by the County of Orange and the OrangeCounty Flood Control District and on behalf of the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, CostaMesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Lake Forest, NewportBeach, Placentia, Seal Beach and Villa Park (collectively, "Joint Test Claimants")-

The Joint Test Claimants respectfully request the opportunity to further discuss theimpact of the Supreme Court's decision in future briefing before the Commission. If you oryour staff have any questions concerning the Supplemental Brief, please do not hesitate tocontact me.

Very truly yours,

LEON J. PAGE

COUNTY COUNSEL

By.

JCW:po

cc: Service List (via Drop Box)

Julia Woo,

RECEIVED

Commission onState Mandates

October 21, 2016

1

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF DISCUSSING

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES,

California Supreme Court, Case No. 214855 (Aug. 29, 2016)

TEST CLAIM 09-TC-03: SANTA ANA REGIONAL WATER PERMIT – ORANGE

COUNTY

This brief is filed on behalf of joint test claimants County of Orange, the Orange County

Flood Control District and the Cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress,

Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Placentia,

Seal Beach and Villa Park in Test Claim 09-TC-03 (“Joint Test Claimants”) in response to the

request of the Commission on State Mandates in a letter dated September 21, 2016 for additional

briefing concerning the impact of a recent opinion of the California Supreme Court in Department

of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates, Case No. S214855 (slip op. Aug. 29, 2016).

The Joint Test Claimants first discuss the key holdings made by the Supreme Court in

Department of Finance and then apply those holdings to the issues raised in Test Claim 09-TC-03

regarding the requirements of Santa Ana Water Board Order No. R8-2009-0030, which is the

municipal separate storm sewer system (“MS4”) permit for the Joint Test Claimants (the

“Permit”).

I. Department of Finance Has Established a Clear Test for Considering Test Claims

Involving Municipal Storm Water Permits with Federal and State Requirements

In Department of Finance, the California Supreme Court addressed a question considered

by several courts and this Commission:1 Are requirements imposed by state water boards on local

agencies in MS4 permits exclusively “federal” mandates, exempt from the requirement for the

State to provide for a subvention of state funds under Article XIII B, section 6 of the California

Constitution?

The Supreme Court set forth the test of what constitutes a federal versus a state mandate in

the context of MS4 permits, as well as who gets to make that determination under the California

Constitution. That test is:

If federal law compels the state to impose, or itself imposes, a requirement, that

requirement is a federal mandate. On the other hand, if federal law gives the state

discretion whether to impose a particular implementing requirement, and the state

exercises its discretion to impose the requirement by virtue of a “true choice,” that

requirement is not federally mandated.

Slip op. at 18.

1 This issue has been pending since 2007, when former Govt. Code, § 17516, subd. (c), which

prohibited test claims involving orders of the regional or state water boards, was declared

unconstitutional in County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates (2007) 150 Cal.

App.4th 898, 904, 920.

2

Department of Finance involved a challenge to the decision of the Commission in Test

Claims 03-TC-04, -19, -20 and -21, which found that certain provisions in the 2001 Los Angeles

County MS4 permit in fact constituted state mandates and, concerning a provision requiring the

installation and maintenance of trash receptacles at transit stops, required a subvention of state

funds. The Commission similarly found, in Test Claim 07-TC-09, that a number of provisions in

the 2007 San Diego County MS4 permit constituted state mandates. That test claim is presently

on appeal with the Court of Appeal.

Significantly, the process that the Commission used to evaluate these two test claims,

which examined federal statutory or regulatory authority for the MS4 permit provisions at issue,

at the text of previous permits, at evidence of other permits issued by the federal government and

at evidence from the permit development process, was validated by the Supreme Court in

Department of Finance. In affirming the Commission’s decision in regards to the Los Angeles

County test claims, the Court explicitly rejected the argument which has been repeatedly raised by

the State in both Test Claim rebuttals and in court filings, i.e., that the provisions were simply

expressions of the “maximum extent practicable” (“MEP”) standard required of stormwater

permittees in the CWA,2 and thus represented purely federal mandated requirements, exempt from

consideration as state mandates pursuant to Govt. Code, § 17756, subd. (c).

A. The Supreme Court Applied Mandates Case Law in Reaching Its Decision

Key to the Supreme Court’s decision is its careful application of existing mandate

jurisprudence in determining whether an MS4 permit provision was a federal, as opposed to state,

mandate. The Commission must also apply those key cases in its determination of this Test Claim.

The question posed by the Court was this:

How to apply [the federal mandate] exception when federal law requires a local agency to

obtain a permit, authorizes the state to issue the permit, and provides the state discretion

in determining which conditions are necessary to achieve a general standard established

by federal law, and when state law allows the imposition of conditions that exceed the

federal standard.

Slip op. at 15.

The Court considered three key cases, starting with City of Sacramento v. State of

California (1990) 50 Cal.3d 51. In City of Sacramento, the Court found that a state law requiring

local governments to participate in the State’s unemployment insurance program was in fact

compelled by federal law, since the failure to do so would result in the loss of federal subsidies

and federal tax credits for California corporations. The Court found that because of the “certain

and severe federal penalties” that would accrue, the State was left “without discretion” (italics in

slip op.) and thus the State “’acted in response to a federal “mandate.”’” Department of Finance,

slip op. at 16, quoting City of Sacramento, 50 Cal.3d at 74.

The Court next reviewed County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates (1995)

32 Cal.App.4th 805, in which the county alleged that a state requirement to provide indigent

criminal defendants with funding for experts was a state mandate. The court disagreed, finding

that because this requirement reflected a binding Supreme Court precedent interpreting the federal

2 33 U.S.C. §1342(p)(3)(B)(iii).

3

Constitution (Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335), even absent the state law, the county

still would have been bound to fund defense experts. Thus, the legislation simply “codified an

existing federal mandate.” Slip op. at 16.

The Court finally considered Hayes v. Commission on State Mandates (1992) 11

Cal.App.4th 1564, where a state plan adopted under a federal special education law required local

school districts to provide disabled children with certain educational opportunities. While the state

argued that the plan was federally mandated, the Hayes court found that this was merely the

“starting point” of its analysis, which was whether the “’manner of implementation of the federal

program was left to the true discretion of the state.”” Slip op. at 17, quoting Hayes at 1593

(emphasis in slip op.). Hayes concluded that if the State “’freely chose to impose the costs upon

the local agency as a means of implementing a federal program then the costs are the result of a

reimbursable state mandate regardless whether the costs were imposed upon the state by the federal

government.’” Slip op. at 17, quoting Hayes at 1594.

From these cases, the Supreme Court distilled the “federally compelled” test set forth

above, holding that “if federal law gives the state discretion whether to impose a particular

implementing requirement, and the state exercises its discretion to impose the requirement by

virtue of a “true choice,” that requirement is not federally mandated. Slip op. at 18. The Court

also held that it is the State, not the test claimants, which has the burden to show that a challenged

permit condition was mandated by federal law. Slip op. at 23.

Thus, the Commission must employ this test, and allocate to the State the burden of proof,

when determining whether a requirement in an MS4 permit is a state or federal mandate.

B. The Court Examined the Nature of Clean Water Act MS4 Permitting and

Determined That the Water Boards Have Great Discretion in Establishing

Permit Requirements

In Department of Finance, the Supreme Court reviewed the interplay between the federal

CWA and California law set forth in the Water Code (slip op. at 20-21) and determined that with

respect to the adoption of MS4 permits, the State had chosen to administer its own permitting

program to implement CWA requirements (Water Code §13370(d)). Thus, this case was different

from a situation where the State was compelled to administer its own permitting system.

The Court found that the State’s permitting authority under the CWA was similar to that in

Division of Occupational Safety & Health v. State Bd. Of Control (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 794.

There, the State had the choice of being covered by federal occupational safety and health

(“OSHA”) requirements or adopting its own OSHA program, which had to meet federal minimums

and had to extend its standards to State and local employees. In that case, state OSHA

requirements called for three-person firefighting teams instead of the two-person teams that would

have been allowed under the federal program. The court found that because the State had freely

exercised its option to adopt a state OSHA program, and was not compelled to do so by federal

law, the three-person team requirement was a state mandate.

The Supreme Court also distinguished the broad discretion provided to the State under the

federal CWA stormwater permitting regulations with the facts in City of Sacramento, supra, where

the State risked the loss of subsidies and tax credits if it failed to comply with federal law:

4

Here, the State was not compelled by federal law to impose any particular requirement.

Instead, as in Hayes, supra . . . the Regional Board has discretion to fashion

requirements which it determined would meet the CWA’s maximum extent practicable

standard.

Slip op. at 21 (citation omitted). The Court held that the EPA regulations “gave the Board

discretion to determine which specific controls were necessary to meet the [MEP] standard” Id.

C. The Court Rejected the State’s Argument That the Commission Must Defer

to the Water Board’s Determination of What Constitutes a Federal

Mandate

The Supreme Court rejected one of the State’s key arguments, where it argued that the

Commission should defer to a regional board’s determination of what in a stormwater permit

constitutes a federal, versus state, mandate. Slip op. at 21-24.

The Court first addressed whether the Commission ignored “the flexibility in the CWA’s

regulatory scheme, which conferred discretion on the State and regional boards in deciding what

conditions were necessary to comply with the CWA” and whether the Los Angeles County MS4

permit “itself is the best indication of what requirements would have been imposed by the EPA if

the Regional Board had not done so,” such that the Commission “should have deferred to the

board’s determination of what conditions federal law required.” Slip op. at 21 (emphasis in

original).

The Court flatly rejected these arguments, finding that in issuing the permit, “the Regional

Board was implementing both state and federal law and was authorized to include conditions more

exacting than federal law required. [citation omitted]. It is simply not the case that, because a

condition was in the Permit, it was, ipso facto, required by federal law.” Id. at 21-22. The Court

cited as authority City of Burbank v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 613,

where it held (over water board objections) that a federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (“NPDES”) permit issued by a water board (such as the Permit in this Test Claim) may

contain State-imposed conditions that are more stringent than federal law requirements. Id. at 627-

28.

The Court next addressed the Water Boards’ argument that the Commission should have

deferred to the regional board’s conclusion that the challenged requirements in the Los Angeles

County MS4 permit were federally mandated. Finding that this determination “is largely a

question of law,” the Court distinguished situations where the question involved the regional

board’s authority to impose specific permit conditions from those involving the question of who

would pay for such conditions. In the former situation, “the board’s findings regarding what

conditions satisfied the federal [MEP] standard would be entitled to deference.” Slip op. at 22.

But, the Court held,

Reimbursement proceedings before the Commission are different. The question here was

not whether the Regional Board had authority to impose the challenged requirements. It

did. The narrow question here was who will pay for them. In answering that legal question,

the Commission applied California’s constitutional, statutory, and common law to the

single issue of reimbursement. In the context of these proceedings, the State has the

burden to show the challenged conditions were mandated by federal law.

5

Id. at 22-23.

The Court explained that “the State must explain why federal law mandated these

requirements, rather than forcing the Operators to prove the opposite.” In establishing that burden

on the State, the Court held that because article XIII B, section 6 of the Constitution established a

“general rule requiring reimbursement of all state-mandated costs,” a party claiming an exception

to that general rule, such as the federal mandate exception in Govt. Code section 17556,

subdivision (c), “bears the burden of demonstrating that it applies.” Slip op. at 23.

The Supreme Court concluded that the State’s proposed rule of “requiring the Commission

to defer to the Regional Board” would “leave the Commission with no role to play on the narrow

question of who must pay. Such a result would fail to honor the Legislature’s intent in creating

the Commission.” Slip op. at 22. In doing so, the Court looked to the policies underlying Article

XIII B section 6, and concluded that the Constitution “would be undermined if the Commission

were required to defer to the Regional Board on the federal mandate question.” Id.

The Court noted that the “central purpose” of article XIII B is to rein in local government

spending (citing City of Sacramento, supra, 50 Cal.3d at 58-9) and that the purpose of section 6

“is to protect local governments from state attempts to impose or shift the costs of new programs

or increased levels of service by entitling local governments to reimbursement” (citing County of

San Diego v. State of California (1997) 15 Cal. 4th 68, 81), slip op. at 23, emphasis supplied).

Requiring the State to establish that a permit requirement is federally mandated, the Court found,

“serves these purposes.” Id.

D. Applying Its Test, the Court Upheld the Commission’s Determination that

Inspection and Trash Receptacle Requirements In The Los Angeles County

MS4 Permit Were State Mandates

Applying the “federally compelled” test, the Supreme Court reviewed and upheld the

Commission’s determination that the inspection and trash receptacle requirements in the Los

Angeles County MS4 Permit were, in fact, state mandates.

1. The Inspection Requirements

The test claimants had argued in Department of Finance that a requirement in the Los

Angeles County MS4 Permit that the MS4 operators inspect certain industrial facilities and

construction sites was a state mandate. The Commission agreed and the Supreme Court upheld

that determination, citing the grounds employed by the Commission.

First, the Court noted that there was no requirement in the CWA, including the MEP

provision, which “expressly required the Operators to inspect these particular facilities or

construction sites.” Slip op. at 24. While the Act made no mention of inspections, the

implementing federal regulations required inspections of certain industrial facilities and

construction sites (not at issue at the test claim) but did not mention commercial facility inspections

“at all.” Id. Second, the Court agreed with the Appellants that state law gave the regional board

itself “an overarching mandate” inspect the facilities and sites. Id.

The Court further found that with respect to the requirement of the operators to inspect

facilities covered by general industrial and general construction stormwater permits, “the State

Board had placed responsibility for inspecting facilities and sites on the Regional Board” and that

6

in fact the State Board was authorized to charge a fee for permittees, part of which “was earmarked

to pay the Regional Board for ‘inspection and regulatory compliance issues.’” Slip op. at 25

(emphasis in original), citing Water Code, § 13260(d) and §13260, subd. (d)(2)(B)(iii). The Court

further cited evidence before the Commission that the regional board had offered to pay the County

to inspect industrial facilities, an offer that made no sense “if federal law required the County to

inspect those facilities.” Id.

The Court, citing Hayes, supra, found that the regional board had primary responsibility

for inspecting the facilities and sites and “shifted that responsibility to the Operators by imposing

these Permit conditions.” Id. The Court further rejected the State’s argument that the inspections

were federally mandated “because the CWA required the Regional Board to impose permit

controls, and the EPA regulations contemplated that some kind of operator inspections would be

required.” Slip op. at 26. The Court held that the mere fact that federal regulations “contemplated

some form of inspections, however, does not mean that federal law required the scope and detail

of inspections required by the Permit conditions.” Id. (emphasis supplied).

2. The Trash Receptacle Requirement

The Supreme Court also upheld the Commission’s determination that a requirement for

certain Los Angeles County MS4 permittees to place trash receptacles at transit stops represented

a state mandate.

The Court first found, as did the Commission, that while MS4 operators were required to

“include a description of practices and procedures in their permit application,” the permitting

agency had “discretion whether to make those practices conditions of the permit.” Slip op. at 27.

As the Commission found, there was no CWA regulation cited by the State which required trash

receptacles at transit stops, and there was evidence that EPA-issued permits in other cities did not

require trash receptacles at transit stops. Id. This latter fact, that “the EPA itself had issued permits

in other cities, but did not include the trash receptacle condition,” in the Court’s view, “undermines

the argument that the requirement was federally mandated.” Id.

II. Application of the Supreme Court’s Test in Department of Finance Must Lead

to the Conclusion that the Permit Conditions at Issue in this Test Claim are State

Mandates

The Supreme Court has provided the Commission with a clear test that it can apply in

evaluating whether an MS4 permit provision in fact represents a federal or state mandate, and

where the burden of persuasion lies. In this section, the Joint Test Claimants set forth how

Department of Finance, when applied in evaluating the Permit provisions at issue in this Test

Claim, must lead this Commission to conclude that the provisions represent state mandates.3

Before turning to the elements of the Test Claim and how the Supreme Court’s decision in

Department of Finance impacts those elements, we wish to address how the opinion addresses

3 The Supreme Court did not address the issue of whether the state mandates in the Los Angeles County

MS4 permit were unfunded, and that issue is therefore not addressed in this Supplemental Brief.

7

some of the State’s general rebuttal arguments made in letters to the Commission in response to

the Test Claim.4

A. The Supreme Court’s Decision Rejects the Reasoning Employed by the

State to Support Its Position that the Challenged Provisions Represented

Federal Mandates

The Santa Ana Water Board (“SAWB”) argued in a letter dated March 9, 2011 (“SAWB

Letter”) that the NPDES permitting program constituted a federal mandate which applies directly

to local governments, that the State has not shifted any burden to local governments and that the

mandates did not exceed federal law. SAWB Letter at 12-17. Those arguments, however, no

longer have validity in light of Department of Finance.

The SAWB first states (Letter at 2) that “Federal law, not state law, mandates the issuance

of the Permit as a whole, including the challenged provisions.” The Board further argued that it

was mandated by federal law to “prescribe the BMPs [best management practices] that the MS4

must implement.” Id. at 13. This argument was considered and rejected by the Supreme Court,

when it held that the permit requirements are not federal mandates simply because they are

contained in an NPDES permit. Slip op. at 21. Instead, “in issuing the Permit, the Regional Board

was implementing both state and federal law.” Id. In the case of the Los Angeles County MS4

permit requirements, “[i]t is clear federal law did not compel the Regional Board to impose these

particular requirements.” Slip op. at 20. The Court held further that the regional board there “was

not required by federal law to impose any specific permit conditions.”

The SAWB also criticized the approach of the Commission in relying on Hayes, supra and

Long Beach Unified School Dist. v. State of California (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 155, in determining

the existence of state mandates. SAWB Letter at 13. In particular, the Board criticized the

Commission’s approach in assessing state mandates in the 2007 San Diego County permit, where

the Commission examined whether federal law or regulation required a municipality to adopt or

implement a hydromodification plan. It is this particularized approach, however, not simple

deference to the MEP standard that the Supreme Court upheld in Department of Finance. See slip

op. at 24 (the CWA “makes no mention of inspections” . . . .”The regulations do not mention

commercial facility inspections at all.”)

The SAWB also criticized the Commission for what it considered a misapplication of the

holding in Hayes, arguing that the Board did not have “the choice to avoid imposing pollution

controls in MS4 permits” and claiming that the Permit “did not shift any federal mandate from the

4 These are a letter dated March 9, 2011 from David Rice, Esq., Staff Counsel in the Office of Chief

Counsel, State Water Resources Control Board, on behalf of the Santa Ana Water Board and a letter dated

March 9, 2011 from Nona Martinez, Assistant Program Budget Manager for the Department of Finance.

The Joint Test Claimants do not address arguments in these letters that were not germane to the Supreme

Court’s decision, such as whether the permit requirements were new programs or higher levels of service

or whether funding was available, though these other arguments were addressed in the Joint Test

Claimants’ Joint Narrative Statement in Rebuttal filed with the Commission on June 17, 2011

(“Rebuttal”). The Department of Finance letter essentially makes the legal arguments made by the Water

Board in its letter, and thus will not be addressed in this Supplemental Brief.

8

state to the Claimants.” Letter at 16-17. The issue, however, is not whether the regional board had

a choice as to whether to impose pollution controls. The issue was whether the regional board

freely chose the particular pollution controls at issue. As discussed above, the Supreme Court

cited Hayes to show that where a state agency “freely chose” to impose costs on the local agency

as a means of implementing a federal program, those costs were a reimbursable state mandate. As

the Court held, “as in Hayes, supra, [citation omitted], the Regional Board had discretion to fashion

requirements which it determined would meet the CWA’s maximum extent practicable standard.”

B. The Supreme Court Made Clear That Test Claimants Need Not

Challenge The Federal Nature of MS4 Permit Requirements Before the Water

Boards

The SAWB argued that “the question of whether permit provisions exceed the MEP

standard is more properly brought before the State Water Board” and that the Joint Test Claimants

should have exhausted that administrative remedy before the State Water Board. Failing to do so,

argued the Board, would allow “the Commission to adjudicate a matter properly within the

expertise and jurisdiction of the State Water Board.” SAWB Letter at 18-19.

As noted in Section I.C above, the Supreme Court flatly rejected arguments made by the

State that the Commission should defer to the findings of the water boards as to the federal/state

nature of mandates in stormwater permits. Slip op. at 21-24. The Court held that the Commission

is the sole and exclusive venue for determination of this question and that no deference is owed to

the Water Boards. Moreover the Court held that it is the Water Boards which bear the burden of

establishing this exception to the requirement to reimburse unfunded state mandates. Slip op. at

22-23. Department of Finance makes clear that issues of whether a permit requirement constitutes

a state mandate must be heard by the Commission, which has exclusive jurisdiction over such

matters.

C. Application of the Supreme Court’s Decision to the Issues Raised in the

Joint Test Claim Supports A Finding That They Constitute Unfunded State

Mandates

Test Claim 09-TC-03 concerns the following provisions of Santa Ana Water Board Order

No. R8-2009-0030:

1. Section XVIII of the Permit incorporated several existing and proposed Total

Maximum Daily Load (“TMDL”) programs in a fashion that constitute state mandates.

Specifically, the Joint Test Claimants allege that the following requirements constitute such state

mandates:

The requirement in Permit provisions XVIII.B.1 through B.4 to strictly achieve

numeric effluent limits in waste load allocations established for toxic pollutants in San

Diego Creek and Newport Bay;

The requirement in Permit provision XVIII.B.5 to strictly achieve numeric effluent

limits in waste load allocations established for a TMDL for Organo-Chlorine

9

Compounds in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay and a requirement to comply with a

State-adopted TMDL prior to its approval by EPA;

The requirement in Permit provision XVIII.B.7 to develop TMDLs for metals and

selenium in the Newport Bay watershed and the requirement in provision XVIII.B.8

for permittees to establish a “Cooperative Watershed Program” to meet the

requirements of a selenium TMDL implementation plan and to implement that plan

upon Water Board approval;

The requirement in Permit provision XVIII.B.9 for permittees to develop a Constituent

Specific Source Control Plan, including a monitoring program, for the Coyote Creek

and San Gabriel River TMDL for metals and selenium;

The requirement in Permit provision XVIII.C.1 that permittees strictly comply with

numeric effluent limits in waste load allocations under a TMDL for fecal

coliform/bacteria in Newport Bay; and

The requirement in Permit provision XVIII.D.1 that permittees strictly comply with

numeric effluent limits in waste load allocations for Diazinon and Chlorphyrifos in San

Diego Creek and Chlorphyrifos in Newport Bay.

2. The application of low impact development (“LID”) and hydromodification

requirements in Sections XII.B through XII.E of the Permit to public projects.

3. The requirement in Section XIII of the Permit to undertake specific public

education requirements.

4. The requirement in Section XI of the Permit for permittees to develop a program to

reduce discharges of pollutants from residential facilities through specific program elements.

5. The requirement in Sections IX and X of the Permit (relating to municipal

inspections of industrial and commercial facilities) that permittees develop a Geographical

Information System (“GIS”) for industrial facilities and specified commercial facilities and

conduct additional inspections.

The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision on these claims is discussed below.

1. TMDL Provisions

As set forth in the Narrative Statement in Support of the Joint Test Claim (“Narrative

Statement”) (pages 9-27) and the Rebuttal (pages 24-39), the TMDL provisions in the Permit

constitute reimbursable state mandates. First, the Permit’s incorporation of the TMDL waste load

allocations as strict numeric effluent limitations represents a discretionary act of the SAWB that

exceeds the approach called for in the CWA, which is to implement such waste load allocations

through control measures called “best management practices” (“BMPs”). As set forth more fully

in the Rebuttal (see pages 24-39), the plain language of the CWA and its implementing regulations,

10

case law, and the nature of the California Toxics Rule (which forms the basis for many of the

numeric effluent limits) demonstrate that the SAWB in fact had, and made, a “true choice” in

requiring compliance with such limits.

In Department of Finance, the Supreme Court established this test for an MS4 permit

requirement: a federal mandate exists if federal law compelled the State to impose the requirement

or itself imposed the requirement. On the other hand, “if federal law give the state discretion

whether to impose a particular implementing requirement, and the state exercises its discretion to

impose the requirement virtue of a ‘true choice,’ the requirement is not federally mandated.” Slip

op. at 18. As explained further in the Narrative Statement (11-16) and the Rebuttal (14-22), federal

law does not require the imposition of strict numeric effluent limitations.

Here, the SAWB has exercised its discretion to impose a requirement as part of its “true

choice.” The Supreme Court held that when a water board exercises its discretion in specifying the

manner of implementation of requirements in a stormwater permit, such as implementation of a

TMDL, it is creating a state mandate. See Slip op. at 20-21. The SAWB chose to incorporate the

TMDLs at issue with numeric effluent limitations, instead of requiring the permittees to achieve

compliance with the TMDLs’ waste load allocations with BMPs.

The Joint Test Claimants note that the State Board has itself concluded, in a 2015

precedential order binding on all regional water boards, that the decision to implement WLAs

through numeric effluent limits in Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations (“WQBELs”) is

discretionary, not mandatory: “The permitting authority [has] discretion as to how to express the

WQBEL(s), either as numeric effluent limitations or as BMPs[.]” State Board Order No. WQ

2015-0075, at 11. This recognition of discretion extended also to the State Board’s recognition

that “requiring strict compliance with water quality standards (e.g., by imposing numeric effluent

limitations is at the discretion of the permitting agency.” Id. at 10 (emphasis supplied). The Joint

Test Claimants will provide the Commission with a copy of this Order in future briefing.

Second, the Permit’s requirement that permittees were to comply with TMDLs prior to

their approval by EPA can in no sense be explained as an act required by the CWA, since it is one

made by a state agency to require actions to implement a TMDL that is not yet approved by the

federal EPA, and thus is not federally enforceable. Such act is one of pure discretion by the

SAWB, without compulsion by the CWA, and thus constitutes a requirement that is not federally

compelled under the Department of Finance test.

Third, the Permit’s requirement that permittees are to “participate in the development” of

TMDLs is a classic example of the shifting of federal responsibility from the State to local

government. This shift of federal responsibility was discussed in Department of Finance when

the Supreme Court determined that the State there had transferred inspection requirements

imposed on regional water boards to the permittees: “The Regional Board exercised its discretion

under the CWA, and shifted that obligation to the [MS4] Operators.” Slip op. at 25.

Here, the CWA requires states to develop TMDLs for pollutants in waters where beneficial

uses are found to be impaired due to the presence of those pollutants. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d) (“Each

State shall establish for the waters identified . . . the total maximum daily load, for those pollutants

which the Administrator identifies . . . as suitable for such calculation.”) (emphasis supplied). By

11

shifting in part the responsibility to develop TMDLs to the permittees, the SAWB to that extent

created a reimbursable state mandate.

Fourth, the requirement to create and implement a “Cooperative Watershed Program” and

a “constituent specific source control plan” and monitoring program associated with the selenium

TMDL in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay and the Coyote Creek TMDL similarly are new

programs, adopted at the discretion of the SAWB, which represent reimbursable state mandates.

Neither the CWA nor its implementing regulations requires such programs, as discussed in the

Rebuttal at pages 37-38. In the absence of any such authority, it is clear that the programs were

not “federally compelled” within the meaning of Department of Finance. See also the Court’s

discussion of the trash receptacle requirement in the Los Angeles County MS4 permit at issue in

the case, where, similarly, there was no statutory or regulatory requirement for the receptacles.

Slip op. at 26-27.

2. Low Impact Development and Hydromodification Requirements

As set forth in the Narrative Statement (pages 27-36) and the Rebuttal (pages 39-43), the

application to public development projects of the requirements set forth in Section XII of the

Permit to require the Permit’s LID and hydromodification requirements are state mandates. The

imposition of these requirements illustrates one of the key points made by the Supreme Court in

Department of Finance, that general federal regulatory requirements (here a general requirement

to address discharges from “areas of new development and significant redevelopment,” 40 CFR

§122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)) do not constitute a federal mandate for the highly specific elements included

in the Permit’s LID or hydromodification requirements.

These Permit requirements include, but are not limited to, developing programs to

incorporate water quality protections into development projects, including BMPs for various tasks,

infiltrating and otherwise treating water from the 85th percentile storm event, maintaining or

replicating pre-development hydrologic regimes, taking steps to address changes in hydrology and

pollutant loading from projects, and evaluating project downstream erosion impacts and, as

required, implement in lieu/mitigation projects.

As the Supreme Court held, citing Hayes, where an agency such as the SAWB

implemented a general federal requirement, it was exercising its discretion and exercising a “true

choice” when it imposed the detailed and prescriptive LID and hydromodification provisions. Slip

op. at 25. The LID and hydromodification requirements were not compelled by federal law and,

again, represented the exercise of the SAWB’s discretion to include those requirements in the

Permit.

3. New Public Education Requirements

Department of Finance supports the position of the Joint Test Claimants that the public

education requirements in Section XIII of the Permit are reimbursable state mandates. As set forth

in the Narrative Statement (37-41) and Rebuttal (43-46), the Permit imposed significant new and

detailed public education requirements over and above the requirements of the 2002 permit, all

without any support in the governing federal CWA regulations, which require only “educational

12

activities” for commercial pesticide/herbicide or fertilizer applicators and distributors,

“educational activities” to facilities proper management of used oil and toxic materials and

“educational and training measures” for construction site operators. 40 CFR §

122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)(6), (B)(6) and (D)(4).

The Permit requires the permittees to, among other things, complete a survey, target

specific industrial and commercial sectors as well as residential and community activities, conduct

workshops, develop BMP guidance and public education materials on illegal and unauthorized

dumping and discharges and develop and implement mechanisms for public participation in

planning activities.

In Department of Finance, the Supreme Court reviewed general federal regulatory

provisions regarding inspections to see if they justified the inspection provisions in the Los

Angeles County permit. Slip op. at 24-26. Having parsed those regulations, the Court determined

that they did not establish the federal character of the inspection obligations:

The State argues the inspection requirements were federally mandated because the CWA

required the Regional Board to impose permit controls, and the EPA regulations

contemplated that some kind of operator inspections would be required. That the EPA

regulations contemplated some form of inspections, however, does not mean that federal

law required the scope and detail of inspections required by the Permit conditions.

Slip op. at 26. See also the Court’s disposition of the trash receptacle requirement in the Los

Angeles County permit, where it found that “[n]o regulation cited by the State required trash

receptacles at transit stops.” Id. at 27.

The specificity and scope of the public education requirements in the Permit similarly go

well beyond federal regulatory authority, and demonstrate that the SAWB was exercising its

discretion to impose state mandated requirements on the permittees. As the Rebuttal notes, the

SAWB set forth no findings that the additional public education requirements were required “to

address any deficiencies of the existing program” or were “necessary to address specific pollutants

of concern . . .” Rebuttal at 45. Given the lack of such findings, it cannot be argued the additional

public education conditions “were the only means by which the [MEP] standard could be

implemented,” where deference to the board’s expertise in reaching that finding would be

appropriate. Slip op. at 22.

4. New Residential Facilities Requirements

The Supreme Court’s decision similarly supports the Joint Test Claimants’ position that

the specific and detailed residential facilities requirements are state mandates.

As set forth in the Narrative Statement (42-44) and Rebuttal (46-47), Section XI of the

Permit establishes specific and detailed requirements to address pollutants generated in residential

areas. These requirements include, but are not limited to, developing and implementing a

residential program to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MS4, identifying specified

residential areas and activities that are potential sources of pollutants and encouraging pollution

13

prevention measures, facilitating the collection of oil and hazardous materials, developing a pilot

program to control pollutant discharges from common interest areas and areas managed by

homeowner associations or management companies and evaluating the residential program in

annual reports.

As with the public education requirements, the authorizing federal regulation (40 CFR

§122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)) requires only that unspecified “structural and source control measure to

reduce pollutants from runoff from commercial and residential areas” be included in MS4 permits.

The Supreme Court, as noted above, rejected similar claims that general federal regulatory

requirements gave the Water Board federal authority to impose the kind of specific permit

requirements contained in Section XI.

5. GIS and Inspection Requirements for Industrial and Commercial Facilities

As set forth in the Narrative Statement (45-51) and the Rebuttal (47-51), Section IX.1 of

the Permit included a new requirement to employ a GIS with certain formatting to inventory

industrial facilities and Section X.1 required both a GIS inventory of commercial facilities and the

additional requirement for municipalities to inspect 11 additional categories of commercial

facilities.

The federal stormwater regulations only require that the permit include an “inventory” of

sources associated with industrial activity (40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(ii)). This regulation does not,

however, require the use of GIS technology. The Joint Test Claimants’ Rebuttal (pages 50-51)

further establishes that there were feasible alternatives to the use of GIS. As with the additional

inspection and trash receptacle requirements in the Los Angeles County MS4 permit at issue in

Department of Finance, the SAWB freely chose to impose such additional specific requirements

in the Permit, thus rendering them reimbursable state mandates. Slip op. at 24-27.

Similarly, there is no federal requirement for the use of GIS technology or the inspection

of commercial facilities, including the additional facility types added in the Permit. Under

Department of Finance, such requirements are reimbursable state mandates.

* * *

The Joint Test Claimants appreciate this opportunity to provide this Supplemental Brief on

the impact of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Finance.

10/21/2016 Mailing List

http://csm.ca.gov/csmint/cats/print_mailing_list_from_claim.php 1/9

COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES

Mailing ListLast Updated: 10/3/16

Claim Number: 09­TC­03

Matter: Santa Ana Regional Water Permit ­ Orange County

Claimants: City of AnaheimCity of BreaCity of Buena ParkCity of Costa MesaCity of CypressCity of Fountain ValleyCity of FullertonCity of Huntington BeachCity of IrvineCity of Lake ForestCity of Newport BeachCity of PlacentiaCity of Seal BeachCity of Villa ParkCounty of OrangeOrange County Flood Control District

TO ALL PARTIES, INTERESTED PARTIES, AND INTERESTED PERSONS:Each commission mailing list is continuously updated as requests are received to include or remove anyparty or person on the mailing list. A current mailing list is provided with commission correspondence,and a copy of the current mailing list is available upon request at any time. Except as provided otherwiseby commission rule, when a party or interested party files any written material with the commissionconcerning a claim, it shall simultaneously serve a copy of the written material on the parties andinterested parties to the claim identified on the mailing list provided by the commission. (Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 2, § 1181.3.)

Socorro Aquino, State Controller's OfficeDivision of Audits, 3301 C Street, Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95816Phone: (916) 322­7522SAquino@sco.ca.gov

Harmeet Barkschat, Mandate Resource Services,LLC5325 Elkhorn Blvd. #307, Sacramento, CA 95842Phone: (916) 727­1350harmeet@calsdrc.com

Lacey Baysinger, State Controller's OfficeDivision of Accounting and Reporting, 3301 C Street, Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95816Phone: (916) 324­0254lbaysinger@sco.ca.gov

10/21/2016 Mailing List

http://csm.ca.gov/csmint/cats/print_mailing_list_from_claim.php 2/9

Shanda Beltran, General Counsel, Building Industry Legal Defense FoundationBuilding Association of Southern California, 17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 170, Irvine, CA 92614Phone: (949) 553­9500sbeltran@biasc.org

Kurt Berchtold, Executive Officer, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, CA 92501­3348Phone: (951) 782­3286kberchtold@waterboards.ca.gov

Cindy Black, City Clerk, City of St. Helena1480 Main Street, St. Helena, CA 94574Phone: (707) 968­2742cityclerk@cityofsthelena.org

Lisa Bond, Richards,Watson & Gershon,LLP355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071­3101Phone: (213) 626­8484lbond@rwglaw.com

Danielle Brandon, Budget Analyst, Department of Finance915 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 445­3274danielle.brandon@dof.ca.gov

Allan Burdick, 7525 Myrtle Vista Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95831Phone: (916) 203­3608allanburdick@gmail.com

J. Bradley Burgess, MGT of America895 La Sierra Drive, Sacramento, CA 95864Phone: (916)595­2646Bburgess@mgtamer.com

David Burhenn, Burhenn & Gest,LLP624 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2200, Los Angeles, CA 90017Phone: (213) 629­8788dburhenn@burhenngest.com

Gwendolyn Carlos, State Controller's OfficeDivision of Accounting and Reporting, 3301 C Street, Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95816Phone: (916) 323­0706gcarlos@sco.ca.gov

Daniel Carrigg, Deputy Executive Director/Legislative Director, League of California Cities1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 658­8222Dcarrigg@cacities.org

Annette Chinn, Cost Recovery Systems,Inc.705­2 East Bidwell Street, #294, Folsom, CA 95630Phone: (916) 939­7901achinncrs@aol.com

Carolyn Chu, Senior Fiscal and Policy Analyst, Legal Analyst's Office925 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

10/21/2016 Mailing List

http://csm.ca.gov/csmint/cats/print_mailing_list_from_claim.php 3/9

Phone: (916) 319­8326Carolyn.Chu@lao.ca.gov

Michael Coleman, Coleman Advisory Services2217 Isle Royale Lane, Davis, CA 95616Phone: (530) 758­3952coleman@muni1.com

Chris Crompton, Deputy Director of Public Works, Orange County Public WorksOrange County Environmental Resources, 2301 North Glassell Street, Orange, CA 92865Phone: (714) 955­0630chris.crompton@ocpw.ocgov.com

Marieta Delfin, State Controller's OfficeDivision of Accounting and Reporting, 3301 C Street, Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95816Phone: (916) 322­4320mdelfin@sco.ca.gov

Terri Elliott, Principal Civil Engineer, City of Huntington BeachPublic Works Department, 2000 Main Street, PO Box 190, Huntington Beach, CA 92648Phone: (714) 375­8494TElliott@surfcity­hb.org

Donna Ferebee, Department of Finance915 L Street, Suite 1280, Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 445­3274donna.ferebee@dof.ca.gov

Adam Fischer, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, CA 92501Phone: (951) 320­6363afischer@waterboards.ca.gov

Susan Geanacou, Department of Finance 915 L Street, Suite 1280, Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 445­3274susan.geanacou@dof.ca.gov

Howard Gest, Burhenn & Gest,LLP624 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2200, Los Angeles, CA 90402Phone: (213) 629­8787hgest@burhenngest.com

Nicholas Ghirelli, Richards, Watson & Gershon355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071­3101Phone: (213) 626­8484Nghirelli@rwglaw.com

Dillon Gibbons, Legislative Representative, California Special Districts Association1112 I Street Bridge, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 442­7887dillong@csda.net

Juliana Gmur, 1865 Hernden Avenue, Suite K­44, Clovis, CA 93611Phone: (559) 960­4507julianagmur@msn.com

Catherine George Hagan, Senior Staff Counsel, State Water Resources Control Board

10/21/2016 Mailing List

http://csm.ca.gov/csmint/cats/print_mailing_list_from_claim.php 4/9

c/o San Diego Water Board, 2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92108Phone: (619) 521­3012catherine.hagan@waterboards.ca.gov

Kimberly Hall­Barlow, Jones and Mayer3777 N. Harbor Blvd., Fullerton, CA 92835­1366Phone: (714) 754­5399khb@jones­mayer.com

Mary Halterman, Principal Program Budget Analyst, Department of FinanceLocal Government Unit, 915 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 445­3274Mary.Halterman@dof.ca.gov

Sunny Han, Project Manager, City of Huntington Beach2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648Phone: (714) 536­5907Sunny.han@surfcity­hb.org

Aaron Harp, City of Newport Beach100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660Phone: (949) 644­3000aharp@newportbeachca.gov

Steven Hauerwaas, City of Fountain Valley10200 Siater Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708­4736Phone: (714) 593­4441steve.hauerwaas@fountainvalley.org

Jarad Hildenbrand, City Manager, City of Villa Park17855 Santiago Boulevard, Villa Park, CA 92861Phone: (714) 998­1500jarad@villapark.org

Michael Ho, City of Seal Beach211 Eight Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740Phone: (562) 431­2527mho@ci.seal­beach.ca.us

Dorothy Holzem, Legislative Representative, California State Association of Counties1100 K Street, Suite 101, Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 327­7500dholzem@counties.org

Travis Hopkins, City of Huntington Beach2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648Phone: (714) 536­5437THopkins@surfcity­hb.org

Justyn Howard, Program Budget Manager, Department of Finance915 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 445­1546justyn.howard@dof.ca.gov

Thomas Howard, Executive Director, State Water Resources Control BoardP.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812­2815Phone: (916) 341­5599thoward@waterboards.ca.gov

10/21/2016 Mailing List

http://csm.ca.gov/csmint/cats/print_mailing_list_from_claim.php 5/9

Mark Ibele, Senate Budget & Fiscal Review CommitteeCalifornia State Senate, State Capitol Room 5019, Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 651­4103Mark.Ibele@sen.ca.gov

David Jacobs, Director of Public Works, City of Buena Park6650 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park, CA 90621Phone: (714) 562­3670djacobs@buenapark.com

Edward Jewik, County of Los Angeles Auditor­Controller's Office, 500 W. Temple Street, Room 603, Los Angeles, CA 90012Phone: (213) 974­8564ejewik@auditor.lacounty.gov

Matt Jones, Commission on State Mandates980 9th Street, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 323­3562matt.jones@csm.ca.gov

Jeremy Jungreis, Attorney, Rutan & Tucker, LLP611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626Phone: (714) 338­1882jjungreis@rutan.com

Jill Kanemasu, State Controller's OfficeDivision of Accounting and Reporting, 3301 C Street, Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95816Phone: (916) 322­9891jkanemasu@sco.ca.gov

Anne Kato, State Controller's OfficeDivision of Accounting and Reporting, 3301 C Street, Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95816Phone: (916) 324­5919akato@sco.ca.gov

Anita Kerezsi, AK & Company3531 Kersey Lane, Sacramento, CA 95864Phone: (916) 972­1666akcompany@um.att.com

Dave Kiff, City of Newport Beach100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660Phone: (949) 644­3000dkiff@newportbeachca.gov

Jay Lal, State Controller's Office (B­08)Division of Accounting & Reporting, 3301 C Street, Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95816Phone: (916) 324­0256JLal@sco.ca.gov

Michael Lauffer, Chief Counsel, State Water Resources Control Board1001 I Street, 22nd Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814­2828Phone: (916) 341­5183mlauffer@waterboards.ca.gov

Candice Lee, Richards,Watson & Gershon,LLP355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071

10/21/2016 Mailing List

http://csm.ca.gov/csmint/cats/print_mailing_list_from_claim.php 6/9

Phone: (213) 626­8484clee@rwglaw.com

Keith Linker, City of AnaheimPublic Works, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805Phone: (714) 765­5148KLinker@anaheim.net

Hortensia Mato, City of Newport Beach100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660Phone: (949) 644­3000hmato@newportbeachca.gov

Michelle Mendoza, MAXIMUS17310 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 340, Irvine, CA 95403Phone: (949) 440­0845michellemendoza@maximus.com

Meredith Miller, Director of SB90 Services, MAXIMUS3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 400, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670Phone: (972) 490­9990meredithcmiller@maximus.com

Andre Monette, Partner, Best Best & Krieger, LLP2000 Pennsylvania NW, Suite 5300, Washington, DC 20006Phone: (202) 785­0600andre.monette@bbklaw.com

Richard Montevideo, Rutan & Tucker,LLP611 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626Phone: (714) 641­5100rmontevideo@rutan.com

Peter Naghavi, City of Costa Mesa77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92628Phone: (714) 754­5343pnaghavi@ci.costa­mesa.ca.us

Geoffrey Neill, Senior Legislative Analyst, Revenue & Taxation, California State Association ofCounties (CSAC)1100 K Street, Suite 101, Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 327­7500gneill@counties.org

Kimberly Nguyen, MAXIMUS3130 Kilgore Road, Suite 400, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670Phone: (916) 471­5516kimberleynguyen@maximus.com

Andy Nichols, Nichols Consulting1857 44th Street, Sacramento, CA 95819Phone: (916) 455­3939andy@nichols­consulting.com

Arthur Palkowitz, Artiano Shinoff2488 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92106Phone: (619) 232­3122apalkowitz@as7law.com

10/21/2016 Mailing List

http://csm.ca.gov/csmint/cats/print_mailing_list_from_claim.php 7/9

Trung Phan, City of Fullerton303 W. Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832Phone: (714) 738­5333trungp@cityoffullerton.com

Jai Prasad, County of San BernardinoOffice of Auditor­Controller, 222 West Hospitality Lane, 4th Floor, San Bernardino, CA 92415­0018Phone: (909) 386­8854jai.prasad@atc.sbcounty.gov

Mark Rewolinski, MAXIMUS808 Moorefield Park Drive, Suite 205, Richmond, VA 23236Phone: (949) 440­0845markrewolinski@maximus.com

David Rice, State Water Resources Control Board1001 I Street, 22nd Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 341­5161davidrice@waterboards.ca.gov

Ivette Rodriguez, City of Placentia401 East Chapman Avenue, Placentia, CA 92870Phone: (714) 993­8189irodriguez@placentia.org

Nick Romo, Policy Analyst, League of California Cities1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 658­8254nromo@cacities.org

Carla Shelton, Commission on State Mandates980 9th Street, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 327­6490carla.shelton@csm.ca.gov

Wayne Shimabukuro, County of San BernardinoAuditor/Controller­Recorder­Treasurer­Tax Collector, 222 West Hospitality Lane, 4th Floor, SanBernardino, CA 92415­0018Phone: (909) 386­8850wayne.shimabukuro@atc.sbcounty.gov

Jennifer Shook, County of Orange ­ OC Public Works DepartmentOC Watersheds Program ­ Stormwater External, 2301 N. Glassell Street, Orange, CA 92865Phone: (714) 955­0671jennifer.shook@ocpw.ocgov.com

Shane Silsby, Director of Public Works, County of Orange300 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703Phone: (714) 667­9700shane.silsby@ocpw.ocgov.com

Jim Spano, Chief, Mandated Cost Audits Bureau, State Controller's OfficeDivision of Audits, 3301 C Street, Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95816Phone: (916) 323­5849jspano@sco.ca.gov

Dennis Speciale, State Controller's Office

10/21/2016 Mailing List

http://csm.ca.gov/csmint/cats/print_mailing_list_from_claim.php 8/9

Division of Accounting and Reporting, 3301 C Street, Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95816Phone: (916) 324­0254DSpeciale@sco.ca.gov

Cristina Talley, City of AnaheimPublic Works, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard #356, Anaheim, CA 92805Phone: (714) 765­5169CTalley@anaheim.net

Jolene Tollenaar, MGT of America2251 Harvard Street, Suite 134, Sacramento, CA 95815Phone: (916) 443­411jolene_tollenaar@mgtamer.com

Eric Tolles, City of IrvineOne Civic Center Plaza, Irvine, CA 92623Phone: (949) 724­6453etolles@ci.irvine.ca.us

Evelyn Tseng, City of Newport Beach100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660Phone: (949) 644­3127etseng@newportbeachca.gov

Gonzalo Vazquez, City of CypressDepartment of Public Works, 5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, CA 90630Phone: (714) 229­6752gvazquez@ci.cypress.ca.us

Charlie View, City of Brea1 Civic Center Circle, Brea, CA 95821Phone: (714) 990­7698CharlieV@ci.brea.ca.us

Michael Vigliotta, City of Huntington Beach2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648Phone: (714) 536­5555MVigliotta@surfcity­hb.org

David Webb, City of Newport Beach100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660Phone: (949) 644­3328dwebb@newportbeachca.gov

Renee Wellhouse, David Wellhouse & Associates, Inc. 3609 Bradshaw Road, H­382, Sacramento, CA 95927Phone: (916) 797­4883dwa­renee@surewest.net

Jennifer Whiting, Assistant Legislative Director, League of California Cities1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento , CA 95814Phone: (916) 658­8249jwhiting@cacities.org

Patrick Whitnell, General Counsel, League of California Cities1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 658­8281pwhitnell@cacities.org

10/21/2016 Mailing List

http://csm.ca.gov/csmint/cats/print_mailing_list_from_claim.php 9/9

Julia Woo, Deputy County Counsel, County of OrangeClaimant Representative333 West Santa Ana Blvd, Santa Ana, CA 92702­1379Phone: (714) 834­3300Julia.woo@coco.ocgov.com

Robert Woodings, City of Lake Forest25550 Commercenter Dr, Suite 100, Lake Forest, CA 92630Phone: (949) 461­3480rwoodings@lakeforestca.gov

Hasmik Yaghobyan, County of Los AngelesAuditor­Controller's Office, 500 W. Temple Street, Room 603, Los Angeles, CA 90012Phone: (213) 974­9653hyaghobyan@auditor.lacounty.gov